How to make something horribly complicated out of something beautifully simple.

Jiri Mruzek Wrote:
> > > MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
> > AFAIK Petrie’s survey of the Plateau is overall
> > trustworthy (indeed, Cole complimented Petrie on
> > the standard of his survey of the base of Khufu’s
> > pyramid – I suggest you would do well to read
> > Cole’s survey report in full).
> > My criticism concerns your settling for mean and
> > or average measurements for no other reason than
> > they meet your requirements.
>
> So, you can actually see that they meet my
> requirements for accuracy. You are able to
> perceive that my reconstruction fits Petrie's
> averaged out plan several orders of magnitude
> better than other reconstructions. For some
> reason, that riles you. Well, consider the
> following:

That you have managed to create out of certain measurements selected from Petrie’s survey of the Giza Three a complex geometric pattern that makes some kind of sense to you is not disputed.
What irks me, Jiri, is your persistent refusal to address the question of intent; you have yet to provide any separate evidence that this pattern was created intentionally by the designers of the Giza pyramids and temples.


> a) The original plan would have been made with
> regular squares for the mantled pyramids, just
> like Petries's plan.
> b) If the objective were to build square pyramids,
> based upon carefully monitoring the progress,
> corrections may have been made to one of the sides
> to preserve the total perimeter.

I don’t find this unreasonable, but then I have no experience, direct or otherwise, of laying out squares on such a vast scale and on uneven terrain.


> > I am merely attempting to explain to you (by
> > reference to the actual – as far as can be
> > determined - dimensions and their means)
> that you
> > are wrong in this.
>
> No, you are blindfolding yourself by denying me
> the acknowledgement that with respect to the
> average, provided by a reliable data source, the
> reconstruction works with great accuracy.

But your ‘reconstruction’ does not take into consideration Petrie’s actual maximum and minimum measurements, and this – along with your inability to provide any evidence of intent - is what causes me to dismiss your theory as nothing more than a figment of your imagination.


> The measuring for both surveyors was not done with
> cut and dry procedures, predetermined before the
> actual field work. Both had to make choices, and
> Cole chose to rely on different data. Petrie did
> the survey his way, and Cole did likewise. The
> fact that my accurate reconstruction fits Petrie,
> and not Cole is a strong indicator that Petrie did
> more than a great job, he did an ideal job.
>
> > Cole’s 1925 survey of the base of Khufu’s
> pyramid
> > is more accurate than Petrie’s of 1881-2.
> > If you have read Petrie’s first-hand accounts
> of
> > his work at Khufu’s pyramid and Cole’s 1925
> survey
> > report, then you will know not only that it
> is
> > true but also why – you’ll know also why
> Cole’s
> > survey is most certainly no reflection on
> Petrie’s
> > skills as a surveyor. .
>
> I've read some, and in no way noticed anything
> that would make Cole better than Petrie. To the
> contrary, I found Cole's method more prone to
> mismanagement.

I have here a copy of Petrie’s Pyramids and Temples of Giza (1883) and a copy of Cole’s Determination of the Exact Size and Orientation of the Great Pyramid of Gîza (1925)
IMO, what you are claiming is nonsensical and grossly misleading.
It shows, again IMO, that you either have not read or have read but have misunderstood Petrie’s detailed account of how he surveyed the base of Khufu’s pyramid, and that you have not read Cole’s survey report in full.


> > > It is natural to assume that there was an
> > > original plan, in which the pyramid bases
> > > were square. Do you share this assumption?
> >
> > It would seem from their general appearance that
> > the pyramids were intended to have a base as
> > square as possible.
> > Whether this was the case with Menkaure’s pyramid
> > is difficult to tell – if one wants to be pedantic
> > about it - because there is a difference of about
> > 8 feet; it may well prove to be a case of this
> > pyramid being built in a hurry and concern with
> > accuracy to the degree seen in Khufu’s pyramid no
> > longer existing.
>
> Eight feet? Forty-eight inches? What
> about these measures by Petrie?
> G3 inches = cubits
> West 4153.9 = 201.462
> South 4157.8 = 201.649
> East 4149.2 = 201.232
> North 4153.6 = 201.445 !
> Average 4153.6 = 201.447 !
>
> Is it not strange that north represents the
> average to a millimeter?
> It could be a controlled event by the builders.
> Anyhow, the average is what it is in my CAD
> drawing. I do not depart from the data.
>
> The difference between east and west is 5 inches
> the difference between south & north is 4
> inches
> There isn't any room here for eight feet.

Once again you show your ignorance of the subject matter in general and your propensity for cherry-picking data.
According to Lehner (The Complete Pyramids 1997) the base of Menkaure’s pyramid is 335 x 343 feet.
Yes, this is contrary to Petrie’s measurements (mean 346.13 x 346.13) but does this mean that Lehner is wrong?
To answer that one needs to look more closely at not only the sets of measurements given by Lehner and Petrie but also by M & R, Verner, Lepre, and others (Silliotti, for example, gives the base measurement as 339.24 feet).
My guess is that you have not looked beyond Petrie’s mean and average measurements; and I have a strong feeling that you never will do.

And what of the theory that the base of Khafre's pyramid was originally intended to be larger than what it is?
Have you looked into this to see what effects, if any, it has on your theory?
What's the betting that your answer is no?

MJ